1. IS IT NECESSARY TO SHOCK?
INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF SHOCKING CONTENT IN
ADVERTISING IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC SERVICE
ANNOUNCEMENTS
SH. YAKUBOV || 24.06.2011

2. AGENDA
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
DEFINITION OF SHOCK ADVERTISING
IMPACT ON MEMORY
IMPACT ON IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR
TOBACCO CONSUMPTION RATES
CONCLUSION

3. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
3

4. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
4

5. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
5

6. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
6

7. Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
7

8. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SHOCK
ADVERTISING IN THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC
SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS.
IS IT REALLY NECESSARY TO
USE SHOCKING ADVERTISING?
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
8

9. SCOPE
COMPARING SHOCKING AND NON-SHOCKING
ADS
EVALUATE IMPACT ON ATTENTION AND MEMORY
EVALUATE IMPACT ON IMEDIATE BEHAVIOR
ANALYSE THE REAL LIFE EFFECT
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
9

10. DEFINITION
SCARE TACTICS: INFORMATIVE, FEAR APPEAL,
SHOCKING, ETC.
INFORMATIVE: e.g. HEALTH WARNINGS ON
CIGARETTES.
FEAR APPEAL: e.g. QUIT NOW (AUSTRALIA,
1983).
SHOCK ADVERTISING: e.g. AUSTRALIAN
NATIONAL TOBACCO CAMPAIGN (NTC) (SINCE
1997).
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
10

11. DEFINITION
SHOCK ADVERTISING DELIBERATELY STARTLES
AND OFFENDS ITS AUDIENCE.
OFFENSE IS CAUSED BY NORM VIOLATION, SUCH
AS TRANSGRESSIONS OF CUSTOM, BREACHES
OF MORAL OR SOCIAL CODE AND ETC.
ACCODRING TO GUSTAFSON AND YSSEL (1994), VENKAT AND ABI-HANNA (1995) AS CITED IN DAHL (2003)
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
11

12. CLAIM
SHOCK ADVERTISING GAINS MORE ATTENTION,
ENCOURAGES COGNITIVE PROCESSING AND
HAS AN IMMEDIATE IMPACT ON BEHAVIOUR.
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
12

13. RESEARCH BY D. DAHL
UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
“DOES IT PAY TO SHOCK? REACTIONS TO
SHOCKING AND NON-SHOCKING ADVERTISING
CONTENT AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS”
JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH
(SEPTEMBER, 2003)
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
13

14. STUDY #1
105 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS - AGE 18-27
THREE TYPES OF ADS: INFORMATIVE, FEAR
APPEAL AND SHOCKING
ADS RELATED TO HIV/AIDS AWARENESS
AIM: TEST FOR EFFECTS OF ATTENTION, RECALL
AND RECOGNITION
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
14

15. STUDY #1
FINDINGS
SHOCKING
FEAR APPEAL
INFORMATIVE
RECALL
96.9%
78.1
78.1
RECOGNITION
100%
81.3
81.3
SHOCK ADVERTISING ATTRACTS MORE
ATTENTION AND FACILITATES MEMORY
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
15

16. STUDY #2
140 UNIVERSITY STUDENTS - AGE 18-27
F O U R T Y P E S O F A D S : I N F O R M AT I V E ,
CONTROLLING, FEAR APPEAL AND SHOCKING
ADS RELATED TO HIV/AIDS AWARENESS
A I M : T E S T F O R I M PA C T O N I M M E D I AT E
BEHAVIOUR
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
16

17. STUDY #1
FINDINGS
SHOCKING
% WHO TOOK
HIV/AIDS
RELATED ITEMS
FEAR APPEAL
INFORMATIVE
CONTROLLING
47.1%
52.9%
20.6%
23.5%
SHOCK AND FEAR APPEAL CONTENT IN ADVERTISING
HAVE ALMOST EQUALLY STRONG EFFECT ON
IMMEDIATE BEHAVIOUR.
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
17

18. REAL LIFE EFFECTS
AUSTRALIAN ANTI-SMOKING CAMPAIGNS
QUIT NOW: 1983-1996, FEAR APPEAL
TOBACCO CONSUMPTION: 40% REDUCTION
NTC: 1997-2008, SHOCK APPEAL
TOBACCO CONSUMPTION: 27% REDUCTION
CRITICISM: TOO MANY INFLUENCING FACTORS
DATA FROM BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL (15 OCTOBER, 1983), CANCER COUNCIL VICTORIA (AUSTRALIA, 2008)
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
18

19. CONCLUSION
SHOCK ADVERTISING: STRONG IMPACT ON
ATTENTION AND MEMORY
FEAR APPEAL: EQUALLY STRONG IMPACT ON
BEHAVIOUR
ULTIMATE TARGET IS TO INFLUENCE BEHAVIOUR
NOT MEMORY.
IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SHOCK.
FEAR APPEAL – LESS OFFENSIVE OR DISTURBING
– CAN BE USED WITH THE SAME SUCCESS.
Is It Necessary To Shock? || Sh. Yakubov
November 10, 2011
19